[Fishlink] ~~>FISHLINK SUBLEGALS 12/13/02<~~
bit-bucket@straylight.primelogic.com
bit-bucket@straylight.primelogic.com
Fri, 20 Dec 2002 15:23:12 EST
--part1_7a.33cd2aff.2b34d630_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
##########################################################
~~>FISHLINK SUBLEGALS 12/13/02<~~
##########################################################
A WEEKLY QUOTA OF FISHERY SHORTS CAUGHT AND
LANDED BY THE INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES
AND THE PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S
ASSOCIATIONS
VOL. 06, NO. 24 13 DECEMBER 2002
##########################################################
"Westlands' officials should be going to jail, not getting more water.
They are guilty of multiple counts of receiving stolen property - the
illegally diverted flows of the Trinity." .....Peter Simon
##########################################################
IN THIS ISSUE.......
Wanger Sides With Ag and Power Interests in Suit to
Rob Trinity Flows. 6:24/01
Injunction Granted Halting Snake River Dredging. 6:24/04
Ninth Circuit Reinstates Roadless Rules in National Forests,
Fish Get Protection. 6:24/06
Washington State Bans Transgenic Fish. 6:24/09
Lack of Commission Quorum Causes Delay in California
Adoption of Nearshore Regulations. 6:24/12
AND MORE......
##########################################################
6:24/01. A WOEFUL WEEK OF WRETCHED WANGER
RULINGS ON TRINITY AND WESTLANDS: On Tuesday, 10
December, in Fresno, U.S. District Court Judge Oliver W. Wanger sided
with California Central Valley power and irrigation interests in the latest
battle over restoring some level of water flows to the Trinity, the main
Northern California tributary of the Klamath River. Historically, the
Trinity was the largest salmon-producing tributary of the Klamath but,
since the 1950's, most of its flow has been diverted by the Central Valley
Project's (CVP) Trinity Unit into the Sacramento River, just below
Shasta Dam. The CVP took 86 percent of the Trinity flow, leaving only
119,000 acre-feet for the river until 1981, when then-Interior Secretary
Cecil Andrus increased the flow in the river to 346,000 acre-feet as part
of a 12-year study to determine the water needs of the fish. Under the
terms of the Trinity Unit authorization, the CVP was only to take water
that was surplus to the needs of the Klamath basin to be used only for
agricultural uses in the Sacramento Valley, not the San Joaquin Valley or
Southern California. Once the project was built the Bureau of
Reclamation unlawfully began selling the water south of the Delta,
including the Westlands Water District, which knowingly purchased the
illegal flows.
In November 2000, following 18 years of study, former Secretary of
Interior Bruce Babbitt, in his Trinity Record of Decision (ROD), ordered
the Trinity flows restored to 48 percent of their historic level for a
"downsized" river (see Sublegals, 2:20/02; 2:18/09). In response to the
Trinity ROD, Westlands Water District, the Northern California Power
Association (NCWA) and the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District
(SMUD) filed suit to block any reduction of Trinity diversions.
Plaintiffs initiated litigation immediately after the signing of the
ROD, accusing the Interior Department of inadequately evaluating the
effect flow changes would have on Central Valley power generation and
endangered Delta Smelt populations. In the 143 page opinion issued
with his ruling, Wanger held that the government had "intentionally
subverted" the National Environmental Quality Act (NEPA) by limiting
public comment on the ROD. Tuesday's ruling called on the government
to complete an environmental impact statement (EIS) with the additional
stipulation that it be completed in 120 days.
However, citing trust responsibilities to the Hupa and Yurok Tribes,
Wanger also declared that flow levels should be left at current interim
levels. Under the order, the Trinity will get 369 thousand acre feet of
water in a critically dry year and 452.6 thousand acre feet in the four
other water-type years. This is more than the 120 thousand acre feet
from 1964 to 1981, the 340 thousand from 1981 to 2000, the 2001 water
year at 368 thousand and close to the 468 thousand he allowed in 2002
water year. The 2002 water year ended in October; the system is now in
the 2003 water year.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), which operates the CVP,
has not decided whether it will be able to complete the EIS in four
months. Representatives from the two Tribes are already consulting with
Interior on a possible appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit. Wanger is
frequently overruled by that appeals court. However, Interior has been
refusing to appeal decisions against it when the suits have been brought
by agribusiness and development interests. Commenting on the ruling,
U.S. Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA) put the situation in
perspective this way, "The Trinity has been studied for 20 years and the
best science says that more water is needed to help this crippled system.
There is no conceivable reason to study it again." For more see the
Eureka Times Standard report at
http://www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127%257E2896%257E1
050753,00.html or the Fresno Bee article at
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/5547959p-6526502c.html.
6:24/02. "OINK, IF YOU LIKE THE WESTLANDS DEAL," SAY
CRITICS OF FEDERAL BUYOUT: On Friday, 13 December, a
settlement agreement was filed with U.S. District Court Judge Oliver
Wanger in Fresno for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to pay over
$100 million to buy and fallow 34,000 acres of land from growers
belonging to the Westlands Water District (see Sublegals, 6:22/09). The
payment agreement is the result of 15 years of legal battles between
agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, the federal
government and Westlands Water District. A group of about 100
growers sued BOR and Westlands for $400 million dollars in damages
claiming the government failed to provide adequate water drainage from
their irrigation lines and, as a result, their land was loaded with salt and
toxic mineral selenium (in addition to pesticides). In a previous court
ruling, Judge Wanger held that the BOR was responsible for providing
proper drainage for farmland. The agreement is the Bureau's attempt to
cut its losses while trying to make headway in the resolution of water
issues in the Central Valley. BOR denies this agreement marks the start
of a new position on Central Valley water issues.
The U.S. Department of Interior's Assistant Secretary for Water &
Science, Bennett Raley, insists, "It shouldn't, however, be mistaken for a
decision by the administration to walk away from irrigated agriculture."
If the agreement is accepted, BOR would pay $107 million to the
growers, and Westlands Water District would pay $32 million to buy the
land and keep it out of production. That amounts to payoffs of about
$4,000 an acre -- a fairly high price for cropland. Agriculture supporters
hope this deal is a sign of things to come -- getting the government to
pay to "retire" over 200,000 acres in the coming months.
Concerns from others, however, have been raised that the money for
the land buyoff may negatively impact funding of environmental
restoration projects and CALFED. Some wonder if the government is
just subsidizing the subsidized, as the farm land would have little value
if the government did not subsidize the water in the first place.
Environmental Defense's Tom Graff, told the San Francisco Chronicle
that even after the $107 million is spent none of the water the federal
government provides to Westlands will be returned and no anti-pollution
measures will be taken. He also said that the sum the growers will be
receiving was so high per acre that it would discourage other efforts
under way to retire poorly drained cropland so the water could be
employed in environmental rehabilitation, including fish flows. Judge
Wanger will be taking public comments on the proposed settlement until
20 December before he decides to approve the deal. For more
information, see the San Francisco Chronicle article at:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/12/12
/financial0741EST0020.DTL.
6:24/03. U.S. RANKED MOST WASTEFUL WATER USER IN
THE WORLD: On 11 December, MSNBC presented an Associated
Press report finding the United States has earned the dubious distinction
of being the most wasteful user of water in the world; that is according
to the Water Poverty Index that was developed by a team of British
researchers. The index ranked 147 countries according to water
resources, access, capacity, use, and environmental impact. The U.S.,
which has the highest per capita water use in the world, ranked 32nd
overall, but last in efficiency. The nations that fared best were a mix of
developed and developing countries, with Finland topping the list,
followed by Canada, Iceland, Norway, Guyana, Suriname, Austria,
Ireland, Sweden, and Switzerland; the worst were all from the
developing world: Haiti, Niger, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Malawi, Djibouti,
Chad, Benin, Rwanda, and Burundi. Issues raised by the index will be
discussed at the World Water Forum to be held in Japan next March.
6:24/04. INJUNCTION GRANTED HALTING SNAKE RIVER
DREDGING: On 12 December, U.S. District Court Judge Robert
Lasnick in Seattle issued an injunction stopping the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) planned dredging of the Snake River to maintain a
deepwater port in Lewiston, Idaho (see Sublegals, 6:23/10). The
injunction was sought by a coalition of fishing (including PCFFA and
IFR) and conservation organizations represented by Earthjustice. The
injunction is expected to last at least a year. The Snake was the largest
salmon-producing tributary of the Columbia River.
In its Snake River dredging program, COE failed to consider or
summarily dismissed any alternative strategies for reducing sediment,
flushing sediment out by increasing flows or any of several cheaper and
less fish destructive alternatives. Of the four alternatives the Corps
considered, all assumed that the dredging would take place, differing
only in minor details. Federal and state agencies, including the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Idaho Department of Fish &
Game (IDFG), and Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
(WDFW), as well as several tribes and conservation groups, had urged
the COE to consider alternatives that would have reduced the need for
dredging both in the short and long term. In signing off on the program,
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) also ignored the fact that
much of the dredging would take place in spawning and rearing habitat
for several endangered or threatened salmon species currently protected
in the Snake River under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). In
other words, said Plaintiffs, the dredging was a "business as usual"
proposal that would undercut salmon restoration efforts by other federal
and state agencies and waste taxpayer money.
The ruling in the case, National Wildlife Federation, et al. v.
National Marine Fisheries Service, et al. (U.S. Dist. Court of Western
Washington at Seattle, Case No. C02-2259L), held that "the arguments
the Corps advanced for not considering the sediment reduction, sediment
flushing and seasonal light loading strategies .....appear to be insufficient
legally. Similarly the Court finds that the failure of NMFS to explain
why dredging of Snake River Fall Chinook critical habitat will not
destroy or adversely affect that critical habitat ... renders the agency
action invalid." This emergency injunction effectively halts dredging for
this year, which was scheduled to begin 15 December, and will remain in
effect until the case comes to trial in about a year. For more, see the
December issue of the Columbia Basin Bulletin, available from its
archives at: http://www.cbbulletin.com/index.htm. For additional
information on the case, go to:
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=510.
6:24/05. BOR PROPOSES BUSINESS AS USUAL FOR RED
BLUFF DIVERSION DAM: At the 12 December meeting of the
Technical Advisory Group for the Fish Passage Improvement Project for
the Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD), the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR) indicated it will prepare a biological assessment on the project
that will recommend current operations (i.e. the no action alternative) as
its preferred alternative. RBDD, built by the BOR in the 1960's, has
been a major impediment to fish passage on California's Sacramento
River and was a contributing factor to the demise of winter-run chinook.
Following the listing of the winter-run under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA), the gates at Red Bluff were lifted during winter-run
migration and alternatives have been found for providing agriculture
irrigation water. The Red Bluff Chamber of Commerce and other local
business boosters, however, want to keep the gates in place to allow for
drag boat racing during the summer (see Sublegals, 6:14/03). More than
500 comments have been received regarding the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/DEIR). At the
meeting, BOR indicated the federal administration is willing to let
fishery agencies prepare a "jeopardy opinion" on this proposal and then
allow the ESA process to determine the outcome rather than work
toward a consensus decision. While this policy is completely contrary to
the CALFED process and SB1086 legacy, it seems consistent with other
recent federal policy decisions on the Klamath Basin and Imperial Valley
water issues.
6:24/06. NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REINSTATES
CLINTON ROADLESS RULES: On 12 December, the U.S. Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower Federal Idaho District
Court, reinstating forest rules developed by the Clinton Administration
that would curtail logging and prevent road-building on 58.5 million
acres of still nearly intact federal forestlands, including prime salmon
habitat. The Bush Administration has sought to open up logging,
regardless of its impact on fish.
In Kootenai Tribe, et. al., vs. Veneman (Consolidated Case Nos.
01-35472, 01-35539 and 01-355476), the Ninth Circuit rejected the logic
of Idaho District Court Judge Edward Lodge when he suspended the
rules on 10 May 2001 as a result of a lawsuit brought by the timber and
cattle industry, snowmobile associations, the State of Idaho and the
Kootenai Tribe. The Bush Administration invited the court challenge,
then refused to defend the rules in court or appeal. Instead, the ruling
was appealed by various intervening environmental organizations. With
its decision, the Appeals Court remanded the proceeding back to the
Federal District Court for additional hearings on other issues. The lower
court had contended that there had been no adequate public comment
process.
However, the Appeals Court sharply criticized the lower court ruling,
noting that "the district court's suggestion that the public was precluded
of 'any meaningful dialogue or input into the process' is contradicted by
the record which shows that the Forest Service held over 400 public
meetings about the Roadless Rules and that it received over 1,150,000
written comments." The Roadless Rules were strongly supported by
commercial and recreational fishing interests. Most salmon spawning
and rearing habitat still left on federal forestlands resides in those
wilderness and roadless areas, protected from excessive logging and
future road building under these rules (see Sublegals 3:01/05).
Administration efforts to do away with the Roadless Rules are by no
means over, however. U.S. Department of Agriculture Undersecretary
for Natural Resources & Environment Mark D. Rey, the architect of the
Administration's efforts to roll back logging restrictions on federal lands,
and a timber industry lobbyist for most of his career prior to being
tapped by this Administration, has already taken the first steps toward
lifting these rules through a formal rule-making process if the same
result cannot be accomplished through the courts. There are also several
other judicial attacks on the Roadless Rules still pending in other courts
on other issues. The 55-page ruling is available from the court's website
at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/
BF7AED3870353A3E88256C8D00576B6C/$file/0135472.pdf?openele
ment.
6:24/07. TEMPERATURE CONTROL DEVICE FOR FOLSOM
DAM SLATED TO BE IN PLACE IN SPRING: A temperature control
device for California's Folsom Dam, that was authorized three years ago
in a $1.2 million Congressional appropriation, is expected to be in place
this next spring to regulate flows into the American River, a tributary of
the Sacramento. The device is designed to allow the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, which operates this dam as part of the California Central
Valley Project (CVP), to withdraw water for municipal and industrial
uses at various depths and temperatures. As a result, the colder water
can be saved for migrating salmon and more efficient power generation.
The idea is to emulate a similar structure and operating strategy installed
at Shasta Dam in 1996. Changes at that location have made it possible
to operate a successful winter-run chinook restoration hatchery while
saving $63 million in lost power production capacity. For more
information, see the 21 November Sacramento News & Review:
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2002-11-21/enviro.asp.
6:24/08: CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION TURNS
THUMBS-DOWN ON WATER BAGGING PROPOSAL - PROJECT
DROPPED; NEW THREAT TO GUALALA: On 12 December, the
California Coastal Commission, during its San Francisco meeting, voted
unanimously to protest a proposal for "bagging" water from the Albion
and Gualala Rivers along the State's north coast and shipping it to
Southern California (see Sublegals, 6:19/08; 6:15/05; 6:14/10).
Following the Commission vote, Ric Davidge of Alaska Water Exports
(AWE) sent a message to the California State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) announcing the withdrawal by his firm of applications
to take the river's water, saying the cost of "additional studies of $1
million for even consideration of these was far beyond reasonable."
Since Davidge's company is foreign owned, there were additional
concerns whether the State would be able to impose environmental
protections around any withdrawal without running afoul of World
Trade Organization (WTO) rules. PCFFA has opposed further diversions
or taking of water from any California river, saying most are already
significantly over-drafted and that has harmed in-river fish species, such
as salmon, and their habitats, as well as coastal estuaries that depend on
freshwater inflows.
In the meantime, it has been learned that the California Public
Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), is considering investing in
Premier Pacific Vineyards' initial public offering (IPO) for converting
some previously logged timberland into vineyard production in the
Gualala River watershed. The proposed vineyards pose two significant
threats to the river. First, they would cause further withdrawals of water
from the river, reducing flow needed for fish and possibly increasing
water temperatures during summer months. Second, since the land under
consideration for vineyards is on steep terrain, there would be heavy
siltation of the river from erosion resulting from the land disturbance.
For more information, go to: http://www.gualalariver.org.
6:24/09. WASHINGTON STATE ADOPTS NEW
AQUACULTURE RULE, BANS GMO FISH: On 7 December the
Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission adopted new rules regulating
marine finfish aquaculture (i.e., fish farms) in state waters. In response
to input from commercial fishermen, environmentalists, scientists and
Tribes, the new rules are a major improvement over the status quo and
substantially stronger than the initial draft rules first proposed by the
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) in January 2001.
The new rules now include:
* A permanent ban on the use of genetically engineered (also called
"transgenic" or "genetically modified organisms" (GMO)) fish;
* A requirement for at least annual inspections of all marine aquaculture
facilities in the state;
* An extended 60-day public review period of permit applications;
* Limitations on the duration of permits to a period of five years;
* Enforcement mechanisms for violation of the rules; and
* Expanded requirements for disclosure of antibiotics or other drugs
used on fish that escape.
The Washington Commissioners, however, did not adopt a proposed
amendment to define any release of farmed fish as a "reportable escape
event." Instead, the Commission stayed with the current NPDES
[National Pollutant Discharge Escape System] permit definition of an
"escape" as "1,500 or more fish if over 1kilogram or 3,000 fish if less
than 1 kilogram." For the minutes of the Commission meeting, go to:
www.wa.gov/wdfw/com/minutes/minutes.htm.
These rules give Washington by far the strongest aquaculture and
GMO fish control rules in the United States, amid growing concerns
over the impact of aquaculture industry practices on already depressed
wild salmon populations. Scientists from Purdue University, for
instance, have determined that, if just 60 transgenic salmon escaped
from fish farms and joined a population of wild salmon, the wild
population could become extinct in 40 generations.
A new study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has also
recognized the immediate and serious human health, environmental and
ethical concerns associated with the use of genetically engineered
animals, including fish, in the human food supply (see Sublegals
6:10/03; 6:08/01; 6:03/08; 6:02/06; 5:09/02; 1:15/07; 1:10/03). Efforts
to pass similar restrictions in California (see Sublegals, 6:10/01; 6:06/01;
5:09/01) and Oregon (see Sublegals, 6:19/07; 6:15/08; 6:05/03; 6:03/09;
5:26/02) have so far failed, though Maryland has adopted rules
restricting GMO fish releases into the wild (see Sublegals 3:15/19). In
California, the Fish & Game Commission will take up a regulatory
package, including a possible moratorium, to address transgenic fish at
its February meeting in Sacramento.
6:24/10. EU MINISTERS REACH ACCORD ON GMO LABELING
LAW: European Union (EU) Agriculture Ministers have finally reached
a political agreement on labeling requirements for genetically modified
food and animal feed reports the 29 November newsletter of
just-food.com. The Agriculture Council agreed that food containing
more than 0.9 percent genetically-modified (GM) material will have to
be labeled as containing such organisms. Seven EU nations had been
hoping for the threshold to be changed to 0.5 percent, while others such
as Britain were hoping for a 1.0 percent threshold. Seafood products
containing genetically modified fish would also be included in these
requirements. The Agriculture Council's agreement will now go to the
European Parliament, which will have to give its approval before any
new legislation can come into effect.
The EU has been far more reticent to accept genetically modified fish
than the United States (see Sublegals 6:12/02; 6:01/16), supporting full
labeling laws, although the EU has issued a patent for at least one
genetically modified salmon (see Sublegals 4:11/9).
6.24/11. SUSTAINABLE SEAFOOD MAKES BOTH DOLLARS
AND SENSE, SAYS STUDY: A new report, "Business Guide to
Sustainable Seafood," published by the Alliance for Environmental
Innovation, demonstrates that marketing and buying seafood from
sustainable fisheries is good for the marine environment, adds additional
economic value to fish products, and assures a stable future supply to
support processing and distribution networks indefinitely - stability that
is an increasingly important factor in seafood business decisions. The
report covers some 40 seafood species (including several species of
salmon, varying by region) the authors consider "sustainably produced"
species and give product and marketing information on each. Though
criteria for "sustainability" do vary, and there is as yet no agreed-upon
standard, the basic findings of the study, that a seafood business based
on more sustainable seafood products is likely to be more profitable,
should be of interest to anyone in the seafood industry as well as to
fisheries economists. The report can be found at:
www.environmentaldefense.org/alliance.
6:24/12. CALIFORNIA FISH & GAME COMMISSION MEETS,
DECISIONS DELAYED: The California Fish & Game Commission met
5 - 6 December in Monterey (see Sublegals, 6:22/11). On the 5th, it
received comments on a number of issues, including the proposal to add
transgenic fish to the list of species that require a permit to be brought
into the State, which will be voted on at its 7 February meeting (see
6:24/09 above). Other topics heard included the California Department
of Fish & Game's (CDFG) report on the coho salmon recovery plan.
Two groups have been created to work by consensus to come up with the
recovery plan; fishing representatives include commercial fisherman and
Humboldt County Supervisor Jimmy Smith, and CalTrout representative
Tom Wesloeh. CDFG was unable to give recommendations on the
emergency regulations to protect coho while the groups work on the
recovery plan, postponing the report until the February meeting.
Public testimony was also received regarding the adoption of the
California Rockfish Conservation Area, which would bring the State into
compliance with federal regulations enacted by the Pacific Fishery
Management Council. To learn more about the California Rockfish
Conservation Area and other groundfish related federal regulations visit:
www.pcouncil.org. This decision will also be made at the 7 February
meeting. The only decision of the day made by the Commission was to
move the location of the 6 - 7 February 2003 meeting to Sacramento.
The lack of decision-making also carried through to the following day's
meeting on 6 December because the Commission did not have a quorum.
Being unable to vote, Commissioners received public testimony
regarding the nearshore restricted access program, but are planning to
hold a special hearing to consider adoption of the program on 20
December. Finally, L.B. Boydston announced that this Commission
meeting was his last Commission meeting, due to his retirement as the
CDFG's State-Federal Coordinator. To access the minutes of the meeting
or to receive more information on the meeting, go to:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fg_comm/2002mtgs.html.
NEWS, COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS: Submit your news items,
comments or any corrections to Editor at: sublegals@ifrfish.org, or call
the IFR/PCFFA office with the news and a source at either: (415)
561-FISH (Southwest Office) or (541) 689-2000 (Northwest Office).
##########################################################
"Sublegals" are a weekly fisheries news bulletin service of Fishlink. To
find out more about Fishlink, list information can be viewed and you can
subscribe yourself automatically at:
http://straylight.primelogic.com/mailman/listinfo/fishlink
If you have any trouble subscribing or unsubscribing, contact
PCFFA/IFR directly at: <fish1ifr@aol.com>.
##########################################################
"Fishlink" and "Sublegals" are registered trademarks of the Institute for
Fisheries Resources. All rights to the use of these trademarks are
reserved to IFR. This publication, however, may be freely reproduced
and circulated without copyright restriction. If you are receiving this
as a subscriber, please feel free to pass this on to your colleagues.
Subscribers who wish to post or circulate hard copy of Sublegals or
have no access to the Internet may receive fax subscriptions by faxing
their request, with their fax number to: (415) 561-5464. Thanks!
##########################################################
MADE YOUR PLEDGE? GOT YOUR SARCASTIC FRINGEHEAD
SHIRT? GO TO: www.ifrfish.org
##########################################################
--part1_7a.33cd2aff.2b34d630_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">##########################################################<BR>
~~>FISHLINK SUBLEGALS 12/13/02<~~<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
A WEEKLY QUOTA OF FISHERY SHORTS CAUGHT AND<BR>
LANDED BY THE INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES <BR>
AND THE PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S<BR>
ASSOCIATIONS<BR>
<BR>
VOL. 06, NO. 24 13 DECEMBER 2002<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
"Westlands' officials should be going to jail, not getting more water. <BR>
They are guilty of multiple counts of receiving stolen property - the<BR>
illegally diverted flows of the Trinity." .....Peter Simon<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
IN THIS ISSUE.......<BR>
<BR>
Wanger Sides With Ag and Power Interests in Suit to <BR>
Rob Trinity Flows. 6:24/01<BR>
<BR>
Injunction Granted Halting Snake River Dredging. 6:24/04<BR>
<BR>
Ninth Circuit Reinstates Roadless Rules in National Forests, <BR>
Fish Get Protection. 6:24/06<BR>
<BR>
Washington State Bans Transgenic Fish. 6:24/09<BR>
<BR>
Lack of Commission Quorum Causes Delay in California <BR>
Adoption of Nearshore Regulations. 6:24/12<BR>
<BR>
AND MORE......<BR>
########################################################## <BR>
6:24/01. A WOEFUL WEEK OF WRETCHED WANGER<BR>
RULINGS ON TRINITY AND WESTLANDS: On Tuesday, 10<BR>
December, in Fresno, U.S. District Court Judge Oliver W. Wanger sided<BR>
with California Central Valley power and irrigation interests in the latest<BR>
battle over restoring some level of water flows to the Trinity, the main<BR>
Northern California tributary of the Klamath River. Historically, the<BR>
Trinity was the largest salmon-producing tributary of the Klamath but,<BR>
since the 1950's, most of its flow has been diverted by the Central Valley<BR>
Project's (CVP) Trinity Unit into the Sacramento River, just below<BR>
Shasta Dam. The CVP took 86 percent of the Trinity flow, leaving only<BR>
119,000 acre-feet for the river until 1981, when then-Interior Secretary<BR>
Cecil Andrus increased the flow in the river to 346,000 acre-feet as part<BR>
of a 12-year study to determine the water needs of the fish. Under the<BR>
terms of the Trinity Unit authorization, the CVP was only to take water<BR>
that was surplus to the needs of the Klamath basin to be used only for<BR>
agricultural uses in the Sacramento Valley, not the San Joaquin Valley or<BR>
Southern California. Once the project was built the Bureau of<BR>
Reclamation unlawfully began selling the water south of the Delta,<BR>
including the Westlands Water District, which knowingly purchased the<BR>
illegal flows. <BR>
<BR>
In November 2000, following 18 years of study, former Secretary of<BR>
Interior Bruce Babbitt, in his Trinity Record of Decision (ROD), ordered<BR>
the Trinity flows restored to 48 percent of their historic level for a<BR>
"downsized" river (see Sublegals, 2:20/02; 2:18/09). In response to the<BR>
Trinity ROD, Westlands Water District, the Northern California Power<BR>
Association (NCWA) and the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District<BR>
(SMUD) filed suit to block any reduction of Trinity diversions. <BR>
<BR>
Plaintiffs initiated litigation immediately after the signing of the<BR>
ROD, accusing the Interior Department of inadequately evaluating the<BR>
effect flow changes would have on Central Valley power generation and<BR>
endangered Delta Smelt populations. In the 143 page opinion issued<BR>
with his ruling, Wanger held that the government had "intentionally<BR>
subverted" the National Environmental Quality Act (NEPA) by limiting<BR>
public comment on the ROD. Tuesday's ruling called on the government<BR>
to complete an environmental impact statement (EIS) with the additional<BR>
stipulation that it be completed in 120 days. <BR>
<BR>
However, citing trust responsibilities to the Hupa and Yurok Tribes,<BR>
Wanger also declared that flow levels should be left at current interim<BR>
levels. Under the order, the Trinity will get 369 thousand acre feet of<BR>
water in a critically dry year and 452.6 thousand acre feet in the four<BR>
other water-type years. This is more than the 120 thousand acre feet<BR>
from 1964 to 1981, the 340 thousand from 1981 to 2000, the 2001 water<BR>
year at 368 thousand and close to the 468 thousand he allowed in 2002<BR>
water year. The 2002 water year ended in October; the system is now in<BR>
the 2003 water year. <BR>
<BR>
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), which operates the CVP,<BR>
has not decided whether it will be able to complete the EIS in four<BR>
months. Representatives from the two Tribes are already consulting with<BR>
Interior on a possible appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit. Wanger is<BR>
frequently overruled by that appeals court. However, Interior has been<BR>
refusing to appeal decisions against it when the suits have been brought<BR>
by agribusiness and development interests. Commenting on the ruling,<BR>
U.S. Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA) put the situation in<BR>
perspective this way, "The Trinity has been studied for 20 years and the<BR>
best science says that more water is needed to help this crippled system. <BR>
There is no conceivable reason to study it again." For more see the<BR>
Eureka Times Standard report at<BR>
http://www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127%257E2896%257E1<BR>
050753,00.html or the Fresno Bee article at<BR>
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/5547959p-6526502c.html. <BR>
<BR>
6:24/02. "OINK, IF YOU LIKE THE WESTLANDS DEAL," SAY<BR>
CRITICS OF FEDERAL BUYOUT: On Friday, 13 December, a<BR>
settlement agreement was filed with U.S. District Court Judge Oliver<BR>
Wanger in Fresno for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to pay over<BR>
$100 million to buy and fallow 34,000 acres of land from growers<BR>
belonging to the Westlands Water District (see Sublegals, 6:22/09). The<BR>
payment agreement is the result of 15 years of legal battles between<BR>
agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, the federal<BR>
government and Westlands Water District. A group of about 100<BR>
growers sued BOR and Westlands for $400 million dollars in damages<BR>
claiming the government failed to provide adequate water drainage from<BR>
their irrigation lines and, as a result, their land was loaded with salt and<BR>
toxic mineral selenium (in addition to pesticides). In a previous court<BR>
ruling, Judge Wanger held that the BOR was responsible for providing<BR>
proper drainage for farmland. The agreement is the Bureau's attempt to<BR>
cut its losses while trying to make headway in the resolution of water<BR>
issues in the Central Valley. BOR denies this agreement marks the start<BR>
of a new position on Central Valley water issues.<BR>
<BR>
The U.S. Department of Interior's Assistant Secretary for Water &<BR>
Science, Bennett Raley, insists, "It shouldn't, however, be mistaken for a<BR>
decision by the administration to walk away from irrigated agriculture."<BR>
If the agreement is accepted, BOR would pay $107 million to the<BR>
growers, and Westlands Water District would pay $32 million to buy the<BR>
land and keep it out of production. That amounts to payoffs of about<BR>
$4,000 an acre -- a fairly high price for cropland. Agriculture supporters<BR>
hope this deal is a sign of things to come -- getting the government to<BR>
pay to "retire" over 200,000 acres in the coming months. <BR>
<BR>
Concerns from others, however, have been raised that the money for<BR>
the land buyoff may negatively impact funding of environmental<BR>
restoration projects and CALFED. Some wonder if the government is<BR>
just subsidizing the subsidized, as the farm land would have little value<BR>
if the government did not subsidize the water in the first place. <BR>
Environmental Defense's Tom Graff, told the San Francisco Chronicle<BR>
that even after the $107 million is spent none of the water the federal<BR>
government provides to Westlands will be returned and no anti-pollution<BR>
measures will be taken. He also said that the sum the growers will be<BR>
receiving was so high per acre that it would discourage other efforts<BR>
under way to retire poorly drained cropland so the water could be<BR>
employed in environmental rehabilitation, including fish flows. Judge<BR>
Wanger will be taking public comments on the proposed settlement until<BR>
20 December before he decides to approve the deal. For more<BR>
information, see the San Francisco Chronicle article at:<BR>
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/12/12<BR>
/financial0741EST0020.DTL.<BR>
<BR>
6:24/03. U.S. RANKED MOST WASTEFUL WATER USER IN<BR>
THE WORLD: On 11 December, MSNBC presented an Associated<BR>
Press report finding the United States has earned the dubious distinction<BR>
of being the most wasteful user of water in the world; that is according<BR>
to the Water Poverty Index that was developed by a team of British<BR>
researchers. The index ranked 147 countries according to water<BR>
resources, access, capacity, use, and environmental impact. The U.S.,<BR>
which has the highest per capita water use in the world, ranked 32nd<BR>
overall, but last in efficiency. The nations that fared best were a mix of<BR>
developed and developing countries, with Finland topping the list,<BR>
followed by Canada, Iceland, Norway, Guyana, Suriname, Austria,<BR>
Ireland, Sweden, and Switzerland; the worst were all from the<BR>
developing world: Haiti, Niger, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Malawi, Djibouti,<BR>
Chad, Benin, Rwanda, and Burundi. Issues raised by the index will be<BR>
discussed at the World Water Forum to be held in Japan next March. <BR>
<BR>
6:24/04. INJUNCTION GRANTED HALTING SNAKE RIVER<BR>
DREDGING: On 12 December, U.S. District Court Judge Robert<BR>
Lasnick in Seattle issued an injunction stopping the U.S. Army Corps of<BR>
Engineers (COE) planned dredging of the Snake River to maintain a<BR>
deepwater port in Lewiston, Idaho (see Sublegals, 6:23/10). The<BR>
injunction was sought by a coalition of fishing (including PCFFA and<BR>
IFR) and conservation organizations represented by Earthjustice. The<BR>
injunction is expected to last at least a year. The Snake was the largest<BR>
salmon-producing tributary of the Columbia River. <BR>
<BR>
In its Snake River dredging program, COE failed to consider or<BR>
summarily dismissed any alternative strategies for reducing sediment,<BR>
flushing sediment out by increasing flows or any of several cheaper and<BR>
less fish destructive alternatives. Of the four alternatives the Corps<BR>
considered, all assumed that the dredging would take place, differing<BR>
only in minor details. Federal and state agencies, including the<BR>
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Idaho Department of Fish &<BR>
Game (IDFG), and Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife<BR>
(WDFW), as well as several tribes and conservation groups, had urged<BR>
the COE to consider alternatives that would have reduced the need for<BR>
dredging both in the short and long term. In signing off on the program,<BR>
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) also ignored the fact that<BR>
much of the dredging would take place in spawning and rearing habitat<BR>
for several endangered or threatened salmon species currently protected<BR>
in the Snake River under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). In<BR>
other words, said Plaintiffs, the dredging was a "business as usual"<BR>
proposal that would undercut salmon restoration efforts by other federal<BR>
and state agencies and waste taxpayer money. <BR>
<BR>
The ruling in the case, National Wildlife Federation, et al. v.<BR>
National Marine Fisheries Service, et al. (U.S. Dist. Court of Western<BR>
Washington at Seattle, Case No. C02-2259L), held that "the arguments<BR>
the Corps advanced for not considering the sediment reduction, sediment<BR>
flushing and seasonal light loading strategies .....appear to be insufficient<BR>
legally. Similarly the Court finds that the failure of NMFS to explain<BR>
why dredging of Snake River Fall Chinook critical habitat will not<BR>
destroy or adversely affect that critical habitat ... renders the agency<BR>
action invalid." This emergency injunction effectively halts dredging for<BR>
this year, which was scheduled to begin 15 December, and will remain in<BR>
effect until the case comes to trial in about a year. For more, see the<BR>
December issue of the Columbia Basin Bulletin, available from its<BR>
archives at: http://www.cbbulletin.com/index.htm. For additional<BR>
information on the case, go to:<BR>
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=510. <BR>
<BR>
6:24/05. BOR PROPOSES BUSINESS AS USUAL FOR RED<BR>
BLUFF DIVERSION DAM: At the 12 December meeting of the<BR>
Technical Advisory Group for the Fish Passage Improvement Project for<BR>
the Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD), the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation<BR>
(BOR) indicated it will prepare a biological assessment on the project<BR>
that will recommend current operations (i.e. the no action alternative) as<BR>
its preferred alternative. RBDD, built by the BOR in the 1960's, has<BR>
been a major impediment to fish passage on California's Sacramento<BR>
River and was a contributing factor to the demise of winter-run chinook.<BR>
Following the listing of the winter-run under the Endangered Species<BR>
Act (ESA), the gates at Red Bluff were lifted during winter-run<BR>
migration and alternatives have been found for providing agriculture<BR>
irrigation water. The Red Bluff Chamber of Commerce and other local<BR>
business boosters, however, want to keep the gates in place to allow for<BR>
drag boat racing during the summer (see Sublegals, 6:14/03). More than<BR>
500 comments have been received regarding the Draft Environmental<BR>
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/DEIR). At the<BR>
meeting, BOR indicated the federal administration is willing to let<BR>
fishery agencies prepare a "jeopardy opinion" on this proposal and then<BR>
allow the ESA process to determine the outcome rather than work<BR>
toward a consensus decision. While this policy is completely contrary to<BR>
the CALFED process and SB1086 legacy, it seems consistent with other<BR>
recent federal policy decisions on the Klamath Basin and Imperial Valley<BR>
water issues.<BR>
<BR>
6:24/06. NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REINSTATES<BR>
CLINTON ROADLESS RULES: On 12 December, the U.S. Ninth<BR>
Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower Federal Idaho District<BR>
Court, reinstating forest rules developed by the Clinton Administration<BR>
that would curtail logging and prevent road-building on 58.5 million<BR>
acres of still nearly intact federal forestlands, including prime salmon<BR>
habitat. The Bush Administration has sought to open up logging,<BR>
regardless of its impact on fish.<BR>
<BR>
In Kootenai Tribe, et. al., vs. Veneman (Consolidated Case Nos.<BR>
01-35472, 01-35539 and 01-355476), the Ninth Circuit rejected the logic<BR>
of Idaho District Court Judge Edward Lodge when he suspended the<BR>
rules on 10 May 2001 as a result of a lawsuit brought by the timber and<BR>
cattle industry, snowmobile associations, the State of Idaho and the<BR>
Kootenai Tribe. The Bush Administration invited the court challenge,<BR>
then refused to defend the rules in court or appeal. Instead, the ruling<BR>
was appealed by various intervening environmental organizations. With<BR>
its decision, the Appeals Court remanded the proceeding back to the<BR>
Federal District Court for additional hearings on other issues. The lower<BR>
court had contended that there had been no adequate public comment<BR>
process. <BR>
<BR>
However, the Appeals Court sharply criticized the lower court ruling,<BR>
noting that "the district court's suggestion that the public was precluded<BR>
of 'any meaningful dialogue or input into the process' is contradicted by<BR>
the record which shows that the Forest Service held over 400 public<BR>
meetings about the Roadless Rules and that it received over 1,150,000<BR>
written comments." The Roadless Rules were strongly supported by<BR>
commercial and recreational fishing interests. Most salmon spawning<BR>
and rearing habitat still left on federal forestlands resides in those<BR>
wilderness and roadless areas, protected from excessive logging and<BR>
future road building under these rules (see Sublegals 3:01/05). <BR>
<BR>
Administration efforts to do away with the Roadless Rules are by no<BR>
means over, however. U.S. Department of Agriculture Undersecretary<BR>
for Natural Resources & Environment Mark D. Rey, the architect of the<BR>
Administration's efforts to roll back logging restrictions on federal lands,<BR>
and a timber industry lobbyist for most of his career prior to being<BR>
tapped by this Administration, has already taken the first steps toward<BR>
lifting these rules through a formal rule-making process if the same<BR>
result cannot be accomplished through the courts. There are also several<BR>
other judicial attacks on the Roadless Rules still pending in other courts<BR>
on other issues. The 55-page ruling is available from the court's website<BR>
at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/<BR>
BF7AED3870353A3E88256C8D00576B6C/$file/0135472.pdf?openele<BR>
ment.<BR>
<BR>
6:24/07. TEMPERATURE CONTROL DEVICE FOR FOLSOM<BR>
DAM SLATED TO BE IN PLACE IN SPRING: A temperature control<BR>
device for California's Folsom Dam, that was authorized three years ago<BR>
in a $1.2 million Congressional appropriation, is expected to be in place<BR>
this next spring to regulate flows into the American River, a tributary of<BR>
the Sacramento. The device is designed to allow the U.S. Bureau of<BR>
Reclamation, which operates this dam as part of the California Central<BR>
Valley Project (CVP), to withdraw water for municipal and industrial<BR>
uses at various depths and temperatures. As a result, the colder water<BR>
can be saved for migrating salmon and more efficient power generation. <BR>
The idea is to emulate a similar structure and operating strategy installed<BR>
at Shasta Dam in 1996. Changes at that location have made it possible<BR>
to operate a successful winter-run chinook restoration hatchery while<BR>
saving $63 million in lost power production capacity. For more<BR>
information, see the 21 November Sacramento News & Review:<BR>
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2002-11-21/enviro.asp. <BR>
<BR>
6:24/08: CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION TURNS<BR>
THUMBS-DOWN ON WATER BAGGING PROPOSAL - PROJECT<BR>
DROPPED; NEW THREAT TO GUALALA: On 12 December, the<BR>
California Coastal Commission, during its San Francisco meeting, voted<BR>
unanimously to protest a proposal for "bagging" water from the Albion<BR>
and Gualala Rivers along the State's north coast and shipping it to<BR>
Southern California (see Sublegals, 6:19/08; 6:15/05; 6:14/10).<BR>
Following the Commission vote, Ric Davidge of Alaska Water Exports<BR>
(AWE) sent a message to the California State Water Resources Control<BR>
Board (SWRCB) announcing the withdrawal by his firm of applications<BR>
to take the river's water, saying the cost of "additional studies of $1<BR>
million for even consideration of these was far beyond reasonable." <BR>
Since Davidge's company is foreign owned, there were additional<BR>
concerns whether the State would be able to impose environmental<BR>
protections around any withdrawal without running afoul of World<BR>
Trade Organization (WTO) rules. PCFFA has opposed further diversions<BR>
or taking of water from any California river, saying most are already<BR>
significantly over-drafted and that has harmed in-river fish species, such<BR>
as salmon, and their habitats, as well as coastal estuaries that depend on<BR>
freshwater inflows.<BR>
<BR>
In the meantime, it has been learned that the California Public<BR>
Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), is considering investing in<BR>
Premier Pacific Vineyards' initial public offering (IPO) for converting<BR>
some previously logged timberland into vineyard production in the<BR>
Gualala River watershed. The proposed vineyards pose two significant<BR>
threats to the river. First, they would cause further withdrawals of water<BR>
from the river, reducing flow needed for fish and possibly increasing<BR>
water temperatures during summer months. Second, since the land under<BR>
consideration for vineyards is on steep terrain, there would be heavy<BR>
siltation of the river from erosion resulting from the land disturbance. <BR>
For more information, go to: http://www.gualalariver.org. <BR>
<BR>
6:24/09. WASHINGTON STATE ADOPTS NEW<BR>
AQUACULTURE RULE, BANS GMO FISH: On 7 December the<BR>
Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission adopted new rules regulating<BR>
marine finfish aquaculture (i.e., fish farms) in state waters. In response<BR>
to input from commercial fishermen, environmentalists, scientists and<BR>
Tribes, the new rules are a major improvement over the status quo and<BR>
substantially stronger than the initial draft rules first proposed by the<BR>
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) in January 2001.<BR>
The new rules now include:<BR>
* A permanent ban on the use of genetically engineered (also called<BR>
"transgenic" or "genetically modified organisms" (GMO)) fish;<BR>
* A requirement for at least annual inspections of all marine aquaculture<BR>
facilities in the state;<BR>
* An extended 60-day public review period of permit applications;<BR>
* Limitations on the duration of permits to a period of five years;<BR>
* Enforcement mechanisms for violation of the rules; and <BR>
* Expanded requirements for disclosure of antibiotics or other drugs<BR>
used on fish that escape.<BR>
<BR>
The Washington Commissioners, however, did not adopt a proposed<BR>
amendment to define any release of farmed fish as a "reportable escape<BR>
event." Instead, the Commission stayed with the current NPDES<BR>
[National Pollutant Discharge Escape System] permit definition of an<BR>
"escape" as "1,500 or more fish if over 1kilogram or 3,000 fish if less<BR>
than 1 kilogram." For the minutes of the Commission meeting, go to:<BR>
www.wa.gov/wdfw/com/minutes/minutes.htm.<BR>
<BR>
These rules give Washington by far the strongest aquaculture and<BR>
GMO fish control rules in the United States, amid growing concerns<BR>
over the impact of aquaculture industry practices on already depressed<BR>
wild salmon populations. Scientists from Purdue University, for<BR>
instance, have determined that, if just 60 transgenic salmon escaped<BR>
from fish farms and joined a population of wild salmon, the wild<BR>
population could become extinct in 40 generations. <BR>
<BR>
A new study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has also<BR>
recognized the immediate and serious human health, environmental and<BR>
ethical concerns associated with the use of genetically engineered<BR>
animals, including fish, in the human food supply (see Sublegals<BR>
6:10/03; 6:08/01; 6:03/08; 6:02/06; 5:09/02; 1:15/07; 1:10/03). Efforts<BR>
to pass similar restrictions in California (see Sublegals, 6:10/01; 6:06/01;<BR>
5:09/01) and Oregon (see Sublegals, 6:19/07; 6:15/08; 6:05/03; 6:03/09;<BR>
5:26/02) have so far failed, though Maryland has adopted rules<BR>
restricting GMO fish releases into the wild (see Sublegals 3:15/19). In<BR>
California, the Fish & Game Commission will take up a regulatory<BR>
package, including a possible moratorium, to address transgenic fish at<BR>
its February meeting in Sacramento.<BR>
<BR>
6:24/10. EU MINISTERS REACH ACCORD ON GMO LABELING<BR>
LAW: European Union (EU) Agriculture Ministers have finally reached<BR>
a political agreement on labeling requirements for genetically modified<BR>
food and animal feed reports the 29 November newsletter of<BR>
just-food.com. The Agriculture Council agreed that food containing<BR>
more than 0.9 percent genetically-modified (GM) material will have to<BR>
be labeled as containing such organisms. Seven EU nations had been<BR>
hoping for the threshold to be changed to 0.5 percent, while others such<BR>
as Britain were hoping for a 1.0 percent threshold. Seafood products<BR>
containing genetically modified fish would also be included in these<BR>
requirements. The Agriculture Council's agreement will now go to the<BR>
European Parliament, which will have to give its approval before any<BR>
new legislation can come into effect.<BR>
<BR>
The EU has been far more reticent to accept genetically modified fish<BR>
than the United States (see Sublegals 6:12/02; 6:01/16), supporting full<BR>
labeling laws, although the EU has issued a patent for at least one<BR>
genetically modified salmon (see Sublegals 4:11/9).<BR>
<BR>
6.24/11. SUSTAINABLE SEAFOOD MAKES BOTH DOLLARS<BR>
AND SENSE, SAYS STUDY: A new report, "Business Guide to<BR>
Sustainable Seafood," published by the Alliance for Environmental<BR>
Innovation, demonstrates that marketing and buying seafood from<BR>
sustainable fisheries is good for the marine environment, adds additional<BR>
economic value to fish products, and assures a stable future supply to<BR>
support processing and distribution networks indefinitely - stability that<BR>
is an increasingly important factor in seafood business decisions. The<BR>
report covers some 40 seafood species (including several species of<BR>
salmon, varying by region) the authors consider "sustainably produced"<BR>
species and give product and marketing information on each. Though<BR>
criteria for "sustainability" do vary, and there is as yet no agreed-upon<BR>
standard, the basic findings of the study, that a seafood business based<BR>
on more sustainable seafood products is likely to be more profitable,<BR>
should be of interest to anyone in the seafood industry as well as to<BR>
fisheries economists. The report can be found at:<BR>
www.environmentaldefense.org/alliance.<BR>
<BR>
6:24/12. CALIFORNIA FISH & GAME COMMISSION MEETS,<BR>
DECISIONS DELAYED: The California Fish & Game Commission met<BR>
5 - 6 December in Monterey (see Sublegals, 6:22/11). On the 5th, it<BR>
received comments on a number of issues, including the proposal to add<BR>
transgenic fish to the list of species that require a permit to be brought<BR>
into the State, which will be voted on at its 7 February meeting (see<BR>
6:24/09 above). Other topics heard included the California Department<BR>
of Fish & Game's (CDFG) report on the coho salmon recovery plan.<BR>
Two groups have been created to work by consensus to come up with the<BR>
recovery plan; fishing representatives include commercial fisherman and<BR>
Humboldt County Supervisor Jimmy Smith, and CalTrout representative<BR>
Tom Wesloeh. CDFG was unable to give recommendations on the<BR>
emergency regulations to protect coho while the groups work on the<BR>
recovery plan, postponing the report until the February meeting. <BR>
<BR>
Public testimony was also received regarding the adoption of the<BR>
California Rockfish Conservation Area, which would bring the State into<BR>
compliance with federal regulations enacted by the Pacific Fishery<BR>
Management Council. To learn more about the California Rockfish<BR>
Conservation Area and other groundfish related federal regulations visit:<BR>
www.pcouncil.org. This decision will also be made at the 7 February<BR>
meeting. The only decision of the day made by the Commission was to<BR>
move the location of the 6 - 7 February 2003 meeting to Sacramento.<BR>
The lack of decision-making also carried through to the following day's<BR>
meeting on 6 December because the Commission did not have a quorum. <BR>
Being unable to vote, Commissioners received public testimony<BR>
regarding the nearshore restricted access program, but are planning to<BR>
hold a special hearing to consider adoption of the program on 20<BR>
December. Finally, L.B. Boydston announced that this Commission<BR>
meeting was his last Commission meeting, due to his retirement as the<BR>
CDFG's State-Federal Coordinator. To access the minutes of the meeting<BR>
or to receive more information on the meeting, go to:<BR>
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fg_comm/2002mtgs.html.<BR>
<BR>
NEWS, COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS: Submit your news items,<BR>
comments or any corrections to Editor at: sublegals@ifrfish.org, or call<BR>
the IFR/PCFFA office with the news and a source at either: (415)<BR>
561-FISH (Southwest Office) or (541) 689-2000 (Northwest Office). <BR>
##########################################################<BR>
"Sublegals" are a weekly fisheries news bulletin service of Fishlink. To<BR>
find out more about Fishlink, list information can be viewed and you can<BR>
subscribe yourself automatically at: <BR>
<BR>
http://straylight.primelogic.com/mailman/listinfo/fishlink <BR>
<BR>
If you have any trouble subscribing or unsubscribing, contact<BR>
PCFFA/IFR directly at: <fish1ifr@aol.com>.<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
"Fishlink" and "Sublegals" are registered trademarks of the Institute for <BR>
Fisheries Resources. All rights to the use of these trademarks are <BR>
reserved to IFR. This publication, however, may be freely reproduced <BR>
and circulated without copyright restriction. If you are receiving this <BR>
as a subscriber, please feel free to pass this on to your colleagues. <BR>
Subscribers who wish to post or circulate hard copy of Sublegals or <BR>
have no access to the Internet may receive fax subscriptions by faxing <BR>
their request, with their fax number to: (415) 561-5464. Thanks! <BR>
##########################################################<BR>
MADE YOUR PLEDGE? GOT YOUR SARCASTIC FRINGEHEAD <BR>
SHIRT? GO TO: www.ifrfish.org <BR>
##########################################################</FONT></HTML>
--part1_7a.33cd2aff.2b34d630_boundary--